Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Smith Vs. Apple

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 03, 1924

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

41 entries 5 linked 36 unlinked
Show
  1. Public Service Co. Vs. Corboy US Supreme Court · Jun 02, 1919
  2. Bien Vs. Robinson US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1908
  3. Shepard Vs. Adams US Supreme Court · Jan 08, 1898
  4. De Rees Vs. Costaguta US Supreme Court · Dec 06, 1920
  5. Marshall Vs. Holmes US Supreme Court · Nov 09, 1891
  6. U.S. 274 (1924) U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Apple
    Search
  7. U.S. 274 (1924) Smith v. Apple
    Search
  8. as to our jurisdiction of this appeal. This we must consider although not raised by counsel. Stevirmac Oil Co. v. Dittman
    Search
  9. Code is a sufficient certification of a jurisdictional question. See Page 264 U. S. 277 Excelsior Pipe Co. v. Bridge
    Search
  10. determine whether or not that court had and should have exercised the jurisdiction thus denied. Excelsior Pipe Co. v. Bridge
    Search
  11. Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Western
    Search
  12. of the Code. Smith v. McKay
    Search
  13. O'Neal v. United
    Search
  14. Darnell v. Illinois
    Search
  15. Stevirmac Oil Co. v. Dittman
    Search
  16. DeRees v. Costaguta
    Search
  17. limited by the Constitution or Page 264 U. S. 278 statutes of the United States, is in controversy, Smith v. McKay
    Search
  18. Mexican Railway v. Eckman
    Search
  19. United States v. Congress
    Search
  20. is in issue. Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Western
    Search
  21. power to entertain the suit and afford the plaintiff equitable relief does not present a jurisdictional issue. Bien v. Robinson
    Search
  22. U. S. 427 . Such an issue is not presented by the question whether there is want of equity in the bill, Smith v. McKay
    Search
  23. Building Association v. Price
    Search
  24. World's Columbian Exposition v. United
    Search
  25. its allegations are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the equitable relief sought, Louisville & N. Railroad Co. v. Western
    Search
  26. S. 173 , or whether it is not cognizable in equity because of a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, Smith v. McKay
    Search
  27. Illinois Railroad v. Adams
    Search
  28. included within its inhibitions. In short, it goes merely to the question of equity in the particular bill. See Simon v. Southern
    Search
  29. Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor
    Search
  30. National Surety Co. v. State
    Search
  31. Such injunctions may be granted, consistently with its provisions, in several classes of cases. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor
    Search
  32. is prohibited by the statute or one in which it may Page 264 U. S. 280 nevertheless be granted. Marshall v. Holmes
    Search
  33. undoubted right to invoke its federal jurisdiction, the court is bound to take the case and proceed to judgment. Kline v. Burke
    Search
  34. upon a jurisdictional issue, but on the merits, was only reviewable by appeal to the circuit court of appeals. De Rees v. Costaguta
    Search
  35. c. 305, 42 Stat. 837, this would have resulted in the dismissal of the appeal for want of jurisdiction here. Smith v. McKay
    Search
  36. Excelsior Pipe Co. v. Bridge
    Search
  37. U.S. Supreme Court Smith v. Apple
    Search
  38. Smith v. McKay
    Search
  39. See Simon v. Southern
    Search
  40. See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Taylor
    Search
  41. Kline v. Burke
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial